”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell
you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's
the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia
on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the
impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist
organisation.

”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans
don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American
government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is
not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.

Emphasis mine.

Unfortunately, while Zelikow was undoubtedly correct that selling the
American people on a war in Iraq to protect Israel would be "unpopular", it will
also probably be "unpopular" to suggest that protecting Israel played a
significant role in the decision to march on Baghdad. It's a topic that a lot of
people would rather not talk about, even critics of the Bush administration,
because it opens up a whole can of very nasty worms.

Of course, the lack of a clear justification for going into Iraq is a natural
breeding ground for all kinds of speculation:

”They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started
to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy
and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read
something into it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at
George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.

But he downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't
make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran
than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat,” he
said.

Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight.

”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more
expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike
me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or
anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a
decision that has already been made,” Brown said.